Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European Union cities proper by population density


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  15:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

List of European Union cities proper by population density

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:DEL7. I cannot find a source other than taking the figures from individual countries' official sources, but this would be considered WP:SYNTHESIS. We cannot be sure the data is complete without an aggregate source. There could be many small dense cities that have not been identified by editors. Also, the principal of comparing municipalities across countries is flawed as the way countries are divided administratively is incomparable (which is likely why there are not sources). Urban areas and their densities are much more comparable, though that would be a different article. Rob984 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SYNTH. No proper sources to verify data. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Here a a couple references that discuss city density in European cities:, . There is also List of cities by population density demonstrating that such a topic is possible to cover responsibly. This article is a good start and we prefer to improve flawed or unfinished articles, not delete them. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem is that they don't actually compare the population densities of cities proper. The first source looks at local administrative units (LAU2), which are not often actual cities (they can be administrative districts of cities and similar, such as London Boroughs). The second just seems to talk about cities in the sense of urban areas, not city proper. We actually have a list of urban areas which allows you to sort by population density: List of urban areas in the European Union (cited to a aggregate, although possibly not reliable source)
 * And also List of cities by population density does not have a aggregate source and is plain synthesis too. It's even tagged "The list is incomplete", so it's probably inaccurate in terms of the ranking, and certainly not a good demonstration of how such a topic should be covered.
 * Not every country is like England with less then 100 cities. Just take France for example. There is no special "city" designation, and the entire country is covered by communes. There are 36,681 communes. All it takes is a few very dense communes which qualify as "cities" to put any synthesised ranking way off.
 * Rob984 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Couldn't this be addressed by laying these limitations out in the article's lead? ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just a "limitation", the list could be completely wrong. The only way you could have (under the current title) a list which is considered reliable, without a single aggregate source, would be to have sources for the densities every single municipality in Europe which is considered a "city".
 * Realistically, you could have "list of cities with over X inhabitants by population density" or "list of X most populous cities by population density", and probably cite them all (limiting the list to say, the 100 most populous cities).
 * But another reason not to synthesise lists is that there isn't evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. A reliable aggregate source demonstrates a list has notability.
 * Rob984 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I beleive the two refs I provided above make a good case for WP:N. You have just suggested some ways to improve the article to address some of the concerns you have raised. Article development on WP is not often linear. If we deleted everything that ever got off track, we'd be less productive. I am sticking with keep and I have justified my position and I respect yours. Per WP:VOTE and  are going to need to give us a bit more than a thumbs down. ~Kvng (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but in my view keeping articles in this state is not helpful to productivity. This isn't a case of just needing a some improvement. It needs someone to take the time to create a well-researched list from scratch. The current article is not a basis for anything. As far as we know, it's completely wrong. Policy is clear, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. When an article only contains OR, that's perfectly reasonable grounds for deletion. Rob984 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, they are only demonstrating notability for what they actually compare, they don't compare city proper densities. An article comparing the densities of "local administrative units" or urban areas is a different article. Eurostat uses many different standardised measures to avoid directly comparing municipalities across countries (because they are not comparable).
 * Rob984 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment due to widely-varying laws at the national level as to what the boundaries of an urban area are, this list will necessarily be problematic. As there are no sources for any of this data, it is even more problematic.  Is Vatican City more dense than these cities?  I'm not sure the question even makes sense, and the page as a whole has the exact same problem. It's also redundant as a stand-alone article to many other lists of cities and should possibly be deleted as a POVFORK of several other lists on Lists of cities in Europe. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per the rationale outlined in depth by the nominator and summarised very neatly by Ajf773. Anything but a simple "thumbs down", in contrast to the characterisation provided. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a good traditional type of encyclopedia topic, very accessible to children, etc.  The arguments asserting it is impossible to create such a list are simply exasperating.  Right, like the worldwide List of cities by population density it is an incomplete list.  And the title does not and will not fully convey the obvious idea that the list will focus upon the denser cities.   To suggest the top entries in such a list will be wrong because all 36,000 or however many rural communes in France are not enumerated in the list, is nonsense.  Proof that the list can be created is accomplished by the fact that the list has been created. -- do  ncr  am  15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just added expand list templates to this list and to the world-wide list, and made other revisions.  Note, this subject list is kind of the inverse of the List of largest cities by area, which was recently at AFD (which closed "Keep").  That list has effectively been vandalized to include just one entry now; it is obviously a work in progress and also obviously it is a valid topic.  See User:Cunard's identification of available sources for that list;  identifying numerous sources for this list is equally feasible.  There are plenty of sources available about areas and populations of cities. -- do  ncr  am  15:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. The article probably should be retitled to List of European cities by population density, leaving explanation about "cities proper" being the focus for the lede of the article.  It can be renamed after this AFD closes. -- do  ncr  am  17:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  18:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:doncram How are my arguments exasperating? They are based on a logical analysis of the topic. There are over 400 communes in France which have a population greater than 20,000 inhabitants. Many of these are very dense urban towns/cities which would easily rank high up in an extended listing. Both Grenoble and Villeurbanne are denser then Bilbao ("6th" on the list), and that's just two French cities which I guessed of the top of my head. How the hell is this a "nonsense" argument?
 * And what about the many communes in the suburbs of Paris, Lyon, etc? For example Levallois-Perret, with a density of 26,000/km2, denser then the commune of Paris ("1st"). Do we include them? If so, all of the largest "cities" in Europe will be Paris' suburbs (Vincennes, Montrouge. Levallois-Perret, Boulogne, Courbevoie, Asnières-sur-Seine, etc. are all denser then Paris proper). And who are you or I to say if whether these are "cities" or not? In France, we don't really have the concept of cities, just towns. Cities in England on the other hand can be villages, just because they have a cathedral.
 * I'm only talking about France here, but the problem is obviously much greater when you take into account the other 27 member states.
 * Changing the name of the article to something more ambiguous doesn't really address the problem at all: this article currently has no informative content.
 * Adding a tag on this article doesn't change the fact that the its content is unsourced, and as I have pointed out, factually wrong. I waited before replying to your comment to see if you were actually going to do anything to fix it. Instead you just added a citation which does not support the content of the article at all. If anything, it demonstrates that Eurostat does not see city proper densities as a comparable measure (since they don't compare it). You claim there are sources yet you can't even fix the list of 10 cities? If the sources existed, that would take 5 minutes to correct. If it's so "feasible" why don't you do it? It's not a valid topic if there are no sources. It's not a valid topic when Eurostat doesn't even consider comparing city proper densities. Please demonstrate the notability of comparing city proper by providing a reliable source.
 * If this article is kept and remains in its current state (as it likely will), it just undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. Nothing is lost by deleting it, anyone can still draft a new list which is correctly sourced. The current article should never have been allowed in the mainspace.
 * Rob984 (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * we have specific criteria for what's allowed in mainspace. Your original contention was that it should be deleted because of WP:DEL7. I think that's been shown to be a not-strong argument. I'm having trouble mapping your more-recent arguments to policy. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:DEL6 "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including... original theories and conclusions".
 * WP:DEL7: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed".
 * WP:DEL8: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline".
 * You have not demonstrated any of these not to be the case. Please find reliable sources so that the article is not in breach of WP:NOR and has demonstrable WP:NOTABILITY.
 * Rob984 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are certainly adequate refs to be found. There is one citation in the article and I found two others with a quick search (posted above). I see no problem meeting policy requirements for inclusion and producing a verifiable article. The subject has established notability. The only problem is you are not convinced and it doesn't look like there's anything that can be done to change that. It is for situations like these that we do not require unanimous consensus and do not delete if even a rough consensus cannot be reached. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've said, the references you provided do not support the content in the article. And again, as I've said, if anything they demonstrate that such a list (comparing population density of city proper across the EU) is not a notable topic, given Eurostat, the statistical agency of the EU, does not make such comparisons (despite comparing the population densities of many other comparable statistical areas). The list section is currently tagged as "This section does not cite any sources", and correctly so. You provide no references for the list, and there is no evidence a list of cities proper by population density is a notably topic. I don't by any means advocate removing articles just because they are bad, but when an article can't be demonstrated to have the potential be brought up to standard (despite your attempts to fabricate an argument that it can be) and meets three different criteria for deletion, it should be deleted. AFAIK, a clear consensus isn't necessary for an admin to concur from this discussion that the article meets those criteria. Rob984 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The role of the closing administrator (or non-administrator) is to assess consensus not policy. See WP:NHC. ~Kvng (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus takes into account the community consensus on policy. This means the closing editor can discard arguments which contradict policy, such as claiming that this article can be amended to comply with WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY and that its topic has notability, based on the fact that you found sources which refer broadly to the topic of population densities in urbanised areas, and make no reference to city proper. WP:NOR clearly states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". I've demonstrated that the list is inaccurate and unsourced, and you've failed to provide any substance as to how this can be rectified. And without a reliable source for actual the topic of the article, i.e. the list, you've got no evidence it has notability. Rob984 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Rob984's main objection seems to be that there are a number of small-area communes around Paris and perhaps elsewhere in France which have high densities, which may seem surprising to readers when they see them.  These could easily be eliminated from the list by restricting it to cities having areas greater than one square mile (which leaves Paris itself in the list).  And/or those odd cases can be covered in a second list within the list-article.  These are concerns for editing, to be discussed at Talk page of article, not reasons to delete the article.  Again, there are obviously numerous sources on the areas and populations of cities. -- do  ncr  am  17:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Who are you or I to decided the criteria? And why would a list which criteria you or I have determined have notability? Some suburbs of Paris are considered distinct towns. But you want to exclude them because they're small? Dense cities are either small, highly populous, or both. Can't you see how that's a completely flawed criteria? And regardless its WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * France is a country I've lived in. I don't know what the situation is in Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc. which have similar administrative arrangements. They could have the same problems, if you want I can look into them.
 * Rob984 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Answer to "Who are you or I to decide the criteria": per guidelines for standalone list-articles, the editors concerned about a list can decide for themselves what are the list-inclusion criteria.  You and I are equally allowed to participate.  I want to acknowledge you have made a good point, about the small French communes.  I think it means we should revise the criteria for the list-article, not delete the list-article. Specifically, I suggest the arbitrary but probably reasonable cutoff, that we want the main list of the list-article to cover cities of one square mile or more in area. -- do  ncr  am  19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We can decide what criteria to use from reliable sources, we cannot just make up a arbitrary criteria. Policy certainly does not advocate making up a criteria. Like I keep stating, we have no reliable sources. And sorry, but being frank, an arbitrary criteria which removes the highest ranking entries in a list is absurd. An arbitrary cut off point on a list (e.g. 100) is fine, but that wouldn't help with the main problem with this list: we have no way to reliably identify the densest cities in the EU, whether that be the top 10, top 100, or whatever amount. If you're going to rank a city as the 5th densest in the EU, you need a reliable source which states so. We have no way to achieve an accurate data set of even just 10 cities, so I don't see how any criteria would help. Rob984 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact we can make up arbitrary criteria and use them. It is technically a requirement for list-articles that there be some coverage of the topic, i.e. some discussion of the group (i.e. mentions of population densities of European cities, which has already been found in a source or two).  But there is no guarantee that sources will be available that define cutoffs nicely for Wikipedia's editing purposes.  It is an editorial decision.  In practice, we have to make such decisions.  I grant freely that having sources support some definition so it seems less like Original Research or whatever is better, but it remains a fact that in practice we have to make our editorial decisions.  I have some experience suggesting an arbitrary cutoff, e.g. for 10 or more branches being required for a pizza chain to be included in some list-article of pizzerias in the United States (hmm, not Talk:List of pizza chains where 100 is suggested by someone else), which no one liked.  No one likes arbitrary-seeming criteria, right, but it is not always possible to avoid them. -- do  ncr  am  19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no sources comparing the population densities of city propers, which is the what this list intends to do. And like I said, you can't just exclude the top ranking entries because they are problematic to identify. Why are cities with bigger areas any more significant? It just makes the list meaningless. And even if we did take such a criteria, you still don't have a way to identify the densest cities in the EU with an area of over one square mile. Until you can demonstrate this, you can't claim this article can be brought in line with WP:NOR and WP:VERIFIABILITY. I find it very strange that someone would oppose deleting an article which is unsourced and conveying out right wrong information, while at the same time being unable to demonstrate how it can be fixed and brought in line with Wikipedia standards. The integrity of Wikipedia is my sole concern here. Rob984 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I disagree that the problems can be fixed by editing or discussion on the talk page, as is repeatedly insinuated. I also note that nobody is attempting to do so. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We are now turning to discussion of the inclusion criteria for the list-article. I could right now go and open discussion at the Talk page of the article, but it is being discussed here for now, and splitting the discussion right now won't help.  I think it should be shifted to the Talk page of the article after the AFD is closed "Keep".  I am not insinuating that something can be discussed, I am discussing it. -- do  ncr  am  19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Since apparently my problem is just with France, I'll point out that its even worst in Spain. As with France, the entire country is covered in municipalities (8,122) and there's no designation for a "city". An example of one is L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, located outside Barcelona, which is denser then any of the cities in the list. So I guess we need a list of all the municipalities in Spain by population density, all the communes in France, etc, etc? The problem is worst because of planning restrictions which mean towns and cities (which form individual municipalities) are very dense, even those with small populations. Just look at a population density map of Spain. Rob984 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. The article notes 'By population, it is the second largest in Catalonia and the sixteenth in Spain. It is noted as one of the most densely populated cities in the European Union.' And it has >4 square miles area. Perfect to include it into this list-article. I am sure we can leave out most of the rest of the municipalities of Spain, which don't compete for being among the densist(sp?) in EU. - do  ncr  am  00:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? Precisely the problem is that you can't know if one of the thousands of municipalities are amongst the densest. How can you identify only the densest? How can you know that there isn't a number of dense municipalities in Spain that you missed? You can't unless you know the density of every city in the EU, or you have an aggregate source which states it is a list of the top 100 or whatever. These municipalities and communes are just ones I can think of, off the top of my head. That should give you some perspective as to how many more there potentially are.
 * Rob984 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Rob984 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.